Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 61 to 88 of 88

Thread: Times Below the Planck Time?

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    In fear or being stuck in a proverbial loop in the discussion, I will leave some of your remarks out and leave it at that... but there are two points I wish to discuss further:
    ''You want to explain exactly how Everette went to work for the military in 1956 and didn't meet with Bohr and his associates until 1959, but went to work for the military, because of his reception from many physicists?''
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    From wiki

    ''Discouraged by the scorn[4] of other physicists for MWI, Everett ended his physics career after completing his Ph.D. Afterwards, he developed the use of generalized Lagrange multipliers for operations research and applied this commercially as a defense analyst and a consultant. ''

    Could be possible I picked you up wrong. He finished his PhD and ended his physics career. When did he work for the military, was that before his PhD?
    Yes, he as I said, he started with the military in 1956, to avoid being drafted (and as I said then, no dishonor there. He was more suited for his work with the Pentagon, than in being a regular solider.) However, his commitment ended in early 1958, soon after he finished his thesis and was awarded his PhD, in 1957. And yet, he stayed on with the Military.

    His thesis was published with another article by Wheeler, lauding the thesis. There wasn't enough time for him to decide his idea was being ignored, Dewitt hadn't made his objections known (or Everette's answers to Dewitt's objections) and a over a full year before Everette met with Bohr.

    So he was working with the military, and chose to stay with the military, before any kind of serious negative objections to his paper. Now I will agree that the reaction to his paper MAY have had something to do with his decision to continue with the military, after 1959. But by then, he was writing some of the highest level documents for the military and also in the process of setting up the first of some very lucrative private companies, involved with advising the military. So, it again, MAY, have been just one of many factors.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor
    ''If you can't follow the math of "The 2D Spin and its Resonance Fringe" on what basis do you conclude that string theory is utterly ridiculous? Perhaps some inconsistency in the math, that you can point it out for us? Or, one of the axioms, that has been falsified. Which one is that?''
    I said I couldn't follow it all, but that would be a lack of understanding the mathematical proceedures in some of it. That was not meant to mean there is a flaw in the work somewhere, though quite possibly there is.
    You miss the point. If you canít follow the math of that paper, why would we take your objections to String Theory (just to be clear, String Theory should be referred to as Superstring Theory. Supersymmetry is a required part of current of the theory and wasnít discovered until after the original String Theory) as objective or based on the mathematics of it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    I am a quantum loop kind of guy as well. As for why I think string theory is ridiculous, where do I begin?

    Strings are supposed to be larger than the Planck Length, yet... due to all experimental data particles actually behave like pointlike particles.
    Well, our equipment canít probe to the level of strings, so that objection is pretty much a strawman. Thatís like complaining that we canít detect how rough the surface of an orange is, by trying to measure the roughness by throwing a baseball at the orange.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    If one was going to really say the idiom ''don't fix what is not broken,'' this might be a prime example. In order for string theory to solve problems back in the 80's, its created new ones which don't make sense.
    Are you saying the inability to integrate Quantum Field Theory and General Relativity in the 1980s was not an example of theories being broken?


    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    An electron exists way below the Planck Length, dimensionless little particles we are led to believe from experimentation... so how can an electron be a two dimensional object?
    Youíre confusing models with reality. The standard model uses point particles for elementary particles. An electron, as a string, is a one dimensional object, not a two dimensional object. And, while experiments show that an electron is consistent with a point particle, actual experiments only claim that electrons are smaller than 10-22m. This size is larger than the Planck Length and is also consistent with a size of the length of a string. So your complaint here is another strawman. Not only that, but if you canít get the dimensions of strings correct, why should think you know enough about String Theory to take your objections to String Theory seriously?

    And if you think string theory is ridiculous, explain how a zero dimensional object can act as if itís spinning? Or, contain any kind of mass. Itís because it can be, in the context of some of our current models, be considered a point particle. That, however, doesnít mean it is a point particle in all models or even in reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    Lets then also talk about the 11 dimensions it requires. That seems an aweful lot of dimensions required for the theory and for us to accept considering we don't see any of these dimensions at all.
    Well, then, you should be able to point out exactly where the mathematics of having this many dimensions is inconsistent, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    In fact, do I need to rehash the old statements saying that string theory is not even science?
    Yeah, Iíd like to hear them. It is, after all, falsifiable. It does make predictions, just not testable predictions that are different from current theory predictions. And that there is the point. If it made predictions that were contradicted by current observations, then it would be falsified. But, it hasnít. All itís current predictions, that are currently reachable with our current equipment, are consistent with observations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    Well. It makes no testable predictions to date... it only attempts to explain phenomenon without a shred a proof or evidence.
    Yeah, thatís been covered above.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    Then some theories of string theory even entertain branes and an ''outside'' to our universe which is ridiculous
    There are five string theories, there are two mirror image pairs. A scale of R in one, works as 1/R in the other, and the other way around. And one that seems to be its own mirror image (See the AdS/CFT). Besides the scale, there are other strong indications that there is one overall theory (M-Theory) that incorporates all five. Itís M-Theory that includes branes, not the individual theories within M-Theory. So, itís not some, itís ONE.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    in the face of GR which says there is no outside to the universe.
    Yeah, and GR also says that spacetime warps. How exactly does spacetime do that? Or perhaps you can explain why String Theory has to satisfy the field equations of GR, in order to be mathematically self consistent, IOW, GR is a part of string theory, in the low energy limit? Youíre objecting to the way one modelís analogies describe the math, and accepting the way another modelís analogies describe itís math. How about you compare the math straight? And before anyone else says anything, I'm not trying to imply that GR is anything magical. Just pointing out that what we model with GR, may not have an actual physical counterpart in reality, even though it does a good job of predicting what we see in reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    I bet if I studied it longer I could come up with more examples of ridiculous predictions string theory makes.
    GR also says that the warping of spacetime, increases without limit as the radius of mass decreases toward a zero radius, during a collapse. And there is nothing, again according to GR, that can stop that collapse. You donít find any of these silly? Again, youíre confusing our models with reality. We assume that spacetime warps, because our model of spacetime, a smooth Lorentzian manifold, warps, when the Einstein Field Equations are applied(technically, the manifold also has to be connected, in a topological sense).

    All youíve done is set up a group of strawmen, then attacked those strawmen. I suppose that is what strawmen are for, but the only valid objection youíve pointed out is that it hasnít made any valid predictions that are different from current predictions. I would have thought you would have brought up the lack of background independence. However, there is the little matter of the compatibility of String Theory and AdS/CFT correspondence that you seem to havenít mentioned.

    In previous posts, you berate mainstream scientists for having closed minds, and yet, here you are, objecting to Superstring Theory. I could understand it if you were making well designed objections. But, you seem to be basing your objections on strawmen, not to mention making obvious errors about what exactly Superstring Theory claims. So, you seem, to me at least, to be making you decision based on strawmen and analogies, not on the acutal math.

    As I said, Iím not overly fond of String Theory, and I think that Loop Quantum Gravity is a better way. However, I am aware of the successes and progress that Superstring Theory has made. And, understand why others think it has possibilities. Until we get a clear and obvious contradiction in either the mathematics of String Theory or a prediction that, even though we cant verify the prediction directly, contradicts a current observation, there really isnít a reason to object to String Theory.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Tensor

    You’re confusing models with reality. The standard model uses point particles for elementary particles. An electron, as a string, is a one dimensional object, not a two dimensional object.

    No I am not confusing anything, you seemed to be confused by the quality of the arguement.

    I do nothing of the sort of mixing the standard model up with a string theory model. I explicitely stated that experimentation (independant of a standard or string model, to mean experimentation alone) states that particles behave like pointlike particles. Now explain to me how string theory can reconcile this when electrons are supposed to be two-dimensional strings?

    ??? really, think about my question.

    Yeah, that’s been covered above.

    Yes and is very important because then it is not a science.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Sorry I pressed reoly without answering all the parts, give me a second.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    There are five string theories, there are two mirror image pairs. A scale of R in one, works as 1/R in the other, and the other way around. And one that seems to be its own mirror image (See the AdS/CFT). Besides the scale, there are other strong indications that there is one overall theory (M-Theory) that incorporates all five. It’s M-Theory that includes branes, not the individual theories within M-Theory. So, it’s not some, it’s ONE.

    Yes, and most scientists actually believe there is only M-theory, or can only be just M-theory, so its prediction of an outside of the universe is rubbish in GR's eyes.

    Yeah, and GR also says that spacetime warps. How exactly does spacetime do that?

    Curvature is a distortion which is the same as the presence of spacetime warps which is the presence of gravity and acceleration. All very consistent and I don't see your point.

    Or perhaps you can explain why String Theory has to satisfy the field equations of GR, in order to be mathematically self consistent, IOW, GR is a part of string theory, in the low energy limit?

    Sure I will explain and it won't take long. It is generally believed that all equations which describe our universe will have to be consistent with each other - Those which aren't won't be able to withold the scrutiny of a unification which is the general drive of physics and the standard model and of relativity theories.

    GR also says that the warping of spacetime, increases without limit as the radius of mass decreases toward a zero radius, during a collapse. And there is nothing, again according to GR, that can stop that collapse. You don’t find any of these silly?

    Do you?>

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor

    You’re confusing models with reality. The standard model uses point particles for elementary particles. An electron, as a string, is a one dimensional object, not a two dimensional object.
    No I am not confusing anything, you seemed to be confused by the quality of the arguement.
    Yes, I am. Considering you continue to think that electrons, as described by strings, are not one dimensional.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    I do nothing of the sort of mixing the standard model up with a string theory model. I explicitely stated that experimentation (independant of a standard or string model, to mean experimentation alone) states that particles behave like pointlike particles.

    Now explain to me how string theory can reconcile this when electrons are supposed to be two-dimensional strings?
    Then please, show me where String Theory claims electrons are a two dimensional object. At their size, particles, as described by one-dimensional strings, would also behave like pointlike particles.

    I also notice that you chose to ignore the part where Strings and point particles are consistent with observations showing electrons (either strings or point particles) are less than 10-22. Why did you leave this out?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    ??? really, think about my question.
    Don't have to. You still haven't got the dimensions right on strings. They are one dimensional. Not two dimensional.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    Yes and is very important because then it is not a science.
    What part has been falsified, by observations?

    I'll stop here while you find a reference showing electrons are two dimensional strings.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    I remember reading somewhere they were two-dimensional - it is possible the source I read this from, was incorrect. However, what evidence do you have to show that a 1-dimensional object would behave like a pointlike particle? Funnily enough in the past I have made a speculation that perhaps an electron is not really pointlike, but still small enough to behave like a pointlike particle. I likened this to the weyl limit, where the mass of a particle can be so small it can more or less be treated like a boson with no mass.

    Seriously, I am interested in this.

    What part has been falsified, by observations?

    Indeed, not even wrong.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,170
    I always thought of the Planck length as the universes 'resolution', its pixel size if you wish to use a computer analogy.
    This is my layman's view anyway.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    I have a queery why this thread was moved. Planck Time is a probem of ''quantum cosmology'' - there is also a quantum scales thread currently being discussed in cosmology which hasn't been moved here.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Clear Lake City, TX
    Posts
    9,042
    I have a queery why this thread was moved. ...
    Questions that are likely to lead to extended discussion about the correct answer, or that have no clearcut correct answer, should be posted in the forum most appropriate to the topic of the question. If a question does lead to such discussion, it may be split off or moved entirely to a more appropriate forum by a moderator. Since it's hard to tell how a discussion will go, posting such questions will generally be treated as a judgment matter and not a rule violation.

    http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....r-the-natives)

    ETA: Queries like this are best handled through the Report function.
    Last edited by Jim; 2012-May-01 at 01:21 PM. Reason: eta
    Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
    Isaac Asimov

    Moderation will be in purple.
    Rules for Posting to This Board

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Where is the report button?

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    408
    Clockwise or Counterclockwise
    Forward or Backward
    On or Off
    Dark or Light
    ....
    Perhaps a tristate condition also exists.
    Could these be signs of a digital universe? ( 0 and 1). Combination of all looks analogue! Similar to digital communication systems.
    Although a clock can either be analogue or digital but the output is similarly sensed as digital like DARK and LIGHT.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,913
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    Where is the report button?
    It's the little black triangle with an exclamation point inside at the lower left corner of each post.

    Nick

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    8,769
    Quote Originally Posted by KhashayarShatti View Post
    Clockwise or Counterclockwise
    Forward or Backward
    On or Off
    Dark or Light
    ....
    Perhaps a tristate condition also exists.
    Could these be signs of a digital universe? ( 0 and 1). Combination of all looks analogue! Similar to digital communication systems.
    Although a clock can either be analogue or digital but the output is similarly sensed as digital like DARK and LIGHT.
    It is not clear what any of that has to do with this thread. But obviously some things are discrete (binary, quantised, whatever) such as on/off or forward/stop/back but other things are continuous (light...dark, hot...cold)

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick Theodorakis View Post
    It's the little black triangle with an exclamation point inside at the lower left corner of each post.

    Nick
    Yes, thank you. I found it anyway.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    408
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    It is not clear what any of that has to do with this thread. But obviously some things are discrete (binary, quantised, whatever) such as on/off or forward/stop/back but other things are continuous (light...dark, hot...cold)
    Right. Referring to the title of the thread, below the Plank time one cannot decide the exact state, i.e. one single photon means LIGHT with no DARK, there is nothing in between, If any change of state takes place in zero time then DARK and LIGHT can exist at the same time which doesn't seem to be so. To me it seems there should be a lower limit to time.

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    I remember reading somewhere they were two-dimensional - it is possible the source I read this from, was incorrect. However, what evidence do you have to show that a 1-dimensional object would behave like a pointlike particle? Funnily enough in the past I have made a speculation that perhaps an electron is not really pointlike, but still small enough to behave like a pointlike particle. I likened this to the weyl limit, where the mass of a particle can be so small it can more or less be treated like a boson with no mass.
    Let's go through this first. I'll assume you cannot find any reference for electrons being represented by two dimensional strings, since you didn't provide any. One dimensional strings would have have a size of ~10-33m. Since, in string theory, electrons are one dimensional strings, their size, in string theory, is also, ~10-33m The links below explain that experiment can determine the UPPER LIMIT for the size of the electron to be 10-24m. In other words, our current experimental equipment cannot resolve the size of an electron, if it's smaller than 10-24m. Since both the standard model and string theory have electron sizes smaller than 10-24m, electrons in both models will appear point like in experiments. Thus, experiment does not falsify String Theory, based on electron size. The evidence is simply the facts of measurement limits.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    Seriously, I am interested in this.
    The following links are measurements of electron limits. The device used in these experiments are called Penning Traps This paper goes into the operations in more depth and explain how the various measurements are done, along with the values as of 2009. There is some more information in Hans Dehmelt's Nobel Lecture from 1989. Dehmelt shared the prize with Wolfgang Paul(note, not Pauli), who refined the technique. Paul's lecture is here. And, here is an in depth paper on the use of ion traps to provide a continuous Stern-Gerlach experiment.

    As you can see, I've struck through the above paragraph. I managed to mess up the urls to the links I posted. The version is below is identical, except for the corrected links. Many thanks to slang for this catch.

    The following links are measurements of electron limits. The device used in these experiments are called Penning Traps. This paper goes into the operations in more depth and explain how the various measurements are done, along with the values as of 2009. There is some more information in Hans Dehmelt's Nobel Lecture from 1989. Dehmelt shared the prize with Wolfgang Paul(note, not Pauli), who refined the technique. Paul's lecture is here. And, here is an in depth paper on the use of ion traps to provide a continuous Stern-Gerlach experiment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    What part has been falsified, by observations?
    Indeed, not even wrong.
    Interesting. I question your ability to even state String Theory is wrong. For example:

    The fact that you didn't, as asked, provide any example of String Theory being falsified by observations, means there must not be such an example.

    The fact that you have not, as asked, pointed out exactly where the mathematics of having 11 dimensions is inconsistent, means there must not be such an example.

    The fact that you didn't even know enough String Theory to know something as basic as strings are one dimensional. After all, if you don't even know the basics of String Theory, how can we trust your declarations as to it's applicability?

    You state in this post that you can't follow all the math in this post . Since your admission to the inability to follow all the math of that paper raises many questions about your ability to follow the math of String Theory, why would we take your objections to String Theory as valid? Especially since you haven't pointed out any inconsistencies in the math, as you were previously asked to do.
    Last edited by Tensor; 2012-May-02 at 04:25 PM. Reason: Correct the URLs in the given links.

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    Yes, and most scientists actually believe there is only M-theory, or can only be just M-theory, so its prediction of an outside of the universe is rubbish in GR's eyes.
    And yet, String Theory includes GR. So, I'm not quite sure where you get the idea that String Theory is rubbish in GR's eyes. If String Theory was rubbish in GR's eyes, surely GR would not be part of String Theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor
    Yeah, and GR also says that spacetime warps. How exactly does spacetime do that?
    Curvature is a distortion which is the same as the presence of spacetime warps which is the presence of gravity and acceleration. All very consistent and I don't see your point.
    You didn't say how it warps spacetime, just that gravity and acceleration are spacetime warps. How does matter warp spacetime?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor
    Or perhaps you can explain why String Theory has to satisfy the field equations of GR, in order to be mathematically self consistent, IOW, GR is a part of string theory, in the low energy limit?
    Sure I will explain and it won't take long. It is generally believed that all equations which describe our universe will have to be consistent with each other - Those which aren't won't be able to withold the scrutiny of a unification which is the general drive of physics and the standard model and of relativity theories.
    So you agree that GR is consistent with String Theory? But above, you said String Theory is rubbish in GR's eyes. How can they be String Theory be consistent, but rubbish at the same time, with GR?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor
    GR also says that the warping of spacetime, increases without limit as the radius of mass decreases toward a zero radius, during a collapse. And there is nothing, again according to GR, that can stop that collapse. You donít find any of these silly?
    Do you?>
    Yes, I do. After all, in GR, those increases become undefined. In String Theory, they are not undefined. So String Theory fixes a broke problem, sorta like combining Quantum Field Theory and General Relativity.

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    And yet, String Theory includes GR. So, I'm not quite sure where you get the idea that String Theory is rubbish in GR's eyes. If String Theory was rubbish in GR's eyes, surely GR would not be part of String Theory.

    Just for this axiom. Of course, there are many things string theory embraces which is not violated.

    You didn't say how it warps spacetime, just that gravity and acceleration are spacetime warps. How does matter warp spacetime?


    I'd have to write down the EFE's and then explain them to you in terms of curvature and how it warps spacetime.

    So you agree that GR is consistent with String Theory? But above, you said String Theory is rubbish in GR's eyes. How can they be String Theory be consistent, but rubbish at the same time, with GR?


    No I don't believe it is consistent because GR does not allow the treatment of an outside to our universe.

    Yes, I do. After all, in GR, those increases become undefined. In String Theory, they are not undefined. So String Theory fixes a broke problem, sorta like combining Quantum Field Theory and General Relativity.

    I guess this all depends on whether you embrace singularities or you think it a break down of the theory. Currently, I think singularties permit the most interesting cases of universes imaginable.

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    59
    If I'm not mistaken, in GR an Einstein-Rosen bridge theoretically does allow the treatment of an "outside" universe, or more accurately a different universe than our own. Why would you accept this possibility but dismiss M-theory which is just as mathematically consistant?

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by Exposed View Post
    If I'm not mistaken, in GR an Einstein-Rosen bridge theoretically does allow the treatment of an "outside" universe, or more accurately a different universe than our own. Why would you accept this possibility but dismiss M-theory which is just as mathematically consistant?
    I don't except it, because I don't believe our universe arose in a ground state.

    That actually means a lot in physics. It means that our universe could not have a wormhole. Please read my ATM thread on my alternative theory to BB. My theory is not really against the ATM, so do not judge it because it is there. Others have recognized that nothing of my own theory actually goes against maintream, only the new idea of my treatment.

  21. #81
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Plus, I don't believe any universe exists ''side-by-side''.

  22. #82
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Clear Lake City, TX
    Posts
    9,042
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    ... Please read my ATM thread on my alternative theory to BB. ...
    13. Alternative Concepts and Conspiracy Theories

    ... Keep promotion of your ATM/CT theories and ideas to only those Against the Mainstream or Conspiracy Theory threads which discuss them. You may not hijack other discussions or otherwise draw attention to your ideas anywhere else on the BAUT forums. ...


    http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....-To-This-Board
    Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
    Isaac Asimov

    Moderation will be in purple.
    Rules for Posting to This Board

  23. #83
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    I don't except it, because I don't believe our universe arose in a ground state.

    That actually means a lot in physics. It means that our universe could not have a wormhole. Please read my ATM thread on my alternative theory to BB. My theory is not really against the ATM, so do not judge it because it is there. Others have recognized that nothing of my own theory actually goes against maintream, only the new idea of my treatment.
    I don't get this. You went to great lengths to justify GR against superstring theory, but here are you picking and choosing what you want to believe in GR itself.

    Plus, I don't believe any universe exists ''side-by-side''.
    Fortunately, science isn't about beliefs. That's what religion is for. Science is about facts, predictions, experimentation, mathematics, logic, critical/analytical thinking, falsifiability, etc.. etc...

    I'm not saying we will definitely prove wormholes and multiverses in the future, what I am saying its a bid absurd to make a solid "stance" against what's in the mathamatical framework of GR/String theory just because you don't agree with its implications. If everyone held your view, quantum mechanics wouldn't have matured because it sure upset most people's belief of a deterministic universe.

  24. #84
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by Exposed View Post
    I don't get this. You went to great lengths to justify GR against superstring theory, but here are you picking and choosing what you want to believe in GR itself.



    Fortunately, science isn't about beliefs. That's what religion is for. Science is about facts, predictions, experimentation, mathematics, logic, critical/analytical thinking, falsifiability, etc.. etc...

    I'm not saying we will definitely prove wormholes and multiverses in the future, what I am saying its a bid absurd to make a solid "stance" against what's in the mathamatical framework of GR/String theory just because you don't agree with its implications. If everyone held your view, quantum mechanics wouldn't have matured because it sure upset most people's belief of a deterministic universe.
    You've got this all backwards. I don't pick a theory just because it sounds good. I pick a theory because it is scientifically possible.

    What does string theory do? It picks a theory which shouldn't even be allowed in GR.

  25. #85
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    And yet, String Theory includes GR. So, I'm not quite sure where you get the idea that String Theory is rubbish in GR's eyes. If String Theory was rubbish in GR's eyes, surely GR would not be part of String Theory.


    You didn't say how it warps spacetime, just that gravity and acceleration are spacetime warps. How does matter warp spacetime?



    So you agree that GR is consistent with String Theory? But above, you said String Theory is rubbish in GR's eyes. How can they be String Theory be consistent, but rubbish at the same time, with GR?



    Yes, I do. After all, in GR, those increases become undefined. In String Theory, they are not undefined. So String Theory fixes a broke problem, sorta like combining Quantum Field Theory and General Relativity.
    Tensor, thank you for the links on the limit of the particle sizes. It strengthens my own sanity of physics since this is a theory I have been meddling around for a while.

    As for String theory being rubbish in the eye's of GR, I am afraid I still hold my point. Many aspects of string theory is indeed nonsensical. You shouldn't be too hung up on it though. If it had been taken really seriously, scientists would have challenged the point about a no-outside-to-the-universe proposal. But they haven't, so they must not find it all too important.

    Now before... you asked me about curvature, how it works. I'll write up a little something for you.

  26. #86
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    is



    where is the scalar curvature, the metric is . If you want to talk about how curvature of space arises, you must first set the conditions that the absence of matter on the right hand side of this equation does not actually mean that the universe will be free of such distortions. Gravitational effects can be present in the form of waves without matter being present still causing a significant amount of curvature.

    This would mean the Ricci tensor is zero everywhere but the Reimann tensor is not. The old, matter causes the warping of space by deforming it in the presence of gravity then should be understood as empiracle.

    But what does it mean to say space is curved?

    Curved coordinates, which is not the same as curvature itself can help us describe this. You can find coordinates that the metric tensor could be constant in space and may be seen as - but you may always be able to find a coordinate transformation which makes the derivatives zero



    Flat space is where we find all this constant stuff. Curvature basically presents you from findaing a space which is flat and will involve all your usual suspects, like Christoffel symbols ect. Pretty complicated stuff no less.
    Last edited by Aethelwulf; 2012-May-06 at 10:03 AM.

  27. #87
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    Tensor, thank you for the links on the limit of the particle sizes. It strengthens my own sanity of physics since this is a theory I have been meddling around for a while.
    You're welcome. I try to provide links for support, where I'm able. Does this mean you understand my point of why electrons in both String Theory and the standard model would appear as point particles?

    For clarity and simplicity, I'm going to combine your two posts into one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    As for String theory being rubbish in the eye's of GR, I am afraid I still hold my point. Many aspects of string theory is indeed nonsensical.
    I won't disagree with you that aspects of it sound nonsensical. Quantum Field Theory, Special and General Relativity, Statistical Mechanics all have parts that sound nonsensical. But, I would argue that the reason for this is those aspects are simply outside of our day to day experience. For example, can you point out where the tangent space for our universe is? Or the tensor bundle for the universe? The thing they have in common with String Theory is they are all mathematically self consistent and are consistent with observations. I was just pointing out that String Theory subsumes GR, so it would be hard for GR to say anything about String Theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    You shouldn't be too hung up on it though. If it had been taken really seriously, scientists would have challenged the point about a no-outside-to-the-universe proposal. But they haven't, so they must not find it all too important.
    I'm not. My only problem with it was your statement that we must keep an open mind, but then you turned around and dismissed String Theory. Based on, it seemed to me, your concept of what should or should not be accepted. I just happen to disagree with your concept of what should be accepted. String Theory is mathematically consistent internally, it's axioms have not been shown to be wrong, and it has not been shown to be incompatible with current observations. Just to be clear, making definitive predictions that differ from current predictions and being incompatible with current observations are two different things. Which is why, although I'm not particularly enamored of String Theory, I can't honestly discard it.

    While I appreciated your write up, it really wasn't necessary. Heheheh, check my forum name...

    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    Now before... you asked me about curvature, how it works. I'll write up a little something for you.

    snip....

    like Christoffel symbols ect.
    You're still missing my point. You can't show or tell me how matter or stress-energy warps spacetime, because we don't know.

    What your write-up did was to show how a artificial math construct known as a Lorentzian Manifold, a subclass of a pseudo-Riemann Manifold, warps, as defined by the use of an abstract mathematical construct known as a curvature tensor (whether that is a Ricci, Riemann, Einsteinian it doesn't matter), in relation to another curvature tensor. Or, in the case of the Einstein Field Equations, to a given amount of what has been defined as stress(momentum and pressure) and energy through the use of another tensor(Stress-energy) and a constant. Neither are actual reality.

    It's pretty much like the wave function of Quantum Field Theory. The wave function allows us to make predictions, by assigning numerical values to particles. It doesn't tell us the actuality of the particle's reality(or even if the numerical values we assign are reality. Much like my use of Tanget Space or Tensor Bundle above) Since all of our physical theories are nothing more than models, with silly, nonsensical parts in all of them, having what appear to be silly, nonsensical part in string theory may be nothing more than parts of the model. I get the feeling that we're not going to agree on this point so we may just have to agree to disagree here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    Pretty complicated stuff no less.
    Yeah, etc. Bianchi identities, contra and covariant derivatives, 1 forms, 2 forms, off diagonal energy, momentum flux, index gymnastics. Yep, pretty complicated, but fun and frustrating to study. There's a few people here who understand it quite a bit better than I do. Since I started later than almost anyone and learned in a non-traditional environment, I'm more than happy to admit to gaps in my knowledge. It gets worse as I get older and fail to use the material anymore.

  28. #88
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    Yeah, etc. Bianchi identities, contra and covariant derivatives, 1 forms, 2 forms, off diagonal energy, momentum flux, index gymnastics. Yep, pretty complicated, but fun and frustrating to study. There's a few people here who understand it quite a bit better than I do. Since I started later than almost anyone and learned in a non-traditional environment, I'm more than happy to admit to gaps in my knowledge. It gets worse as I get older and fail to use the material anymore.

    I'll leave most of this, we''l just agree to disagree where we cannot. But yes, I accept the limit on the particles. As I said, I suspected such a limit anyway for classical spheres.

    Yes, General Relativity can be quite horrid.

Similar Threads

  1. Ep. 218: Max Planck
    By Fraser in forum Astronomy Cast
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2011-Apr-08, 06:20 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2010-Apr-22, 02:30 PM
  3. Planck time refresh rate
    By LSDreamer in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 2005-Dec-30, 07:03 PM
  4. Planck Time = 0,0,0,0?
    By Jerryf in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 2005-Oct-13, 04:44 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: